SHARE

Compressible Data Test

As you will have gathered from the previous page, we measured the performance of each drive using CrystalDiskMark.

It is important to note that we connected the SSDs to a SATA-600 port on our motherboard rather than a SATA-300 port, which could cause performance limitations.

First, we set CrystalDiskMark to “All 0x00 Fill mode” to evaluate the performance of the SSD when dealing with compressible data.

WD Green 240 GiB

On the sequential read benchmark, the WD Green 240 GiB performed similarly to the Kingston SSDNow UV400 240 GiB and to the SanDisk SSD PLUS.

WD Green 240 GiB

On the sequential write benchmark, the WD Green 240 GiB was 6% slower than the Kingston SSDNow UV400 240 GiB and 17% faster than the SanDisk SSD PLUS.

WD Green 240 GiB

On the random read test with 512 kiB blocks, the WD Green 240 GiB was similar to the Kingston SSDNow UV400 240 GiB and 13% faster than the SanDisk SSD PLUS.

WD Green 240 GiB

On the random write test with 512 kiB blocks, the WD Green 240 GiB was also similar to the Kingston SSDNow UV400 240 GiB and 10% faster than the SanDisk SSD PLUS.

WD Green 240 GiB

On the random read benchmark with 4 kiB blocks, the WD Green 240 GiB was 23% slower than the Kingston SSDNow UV400 240 GiB and 19% slower than the SanDisk SSD PLUS.

WD Green 240 GiB

On the random write benchmark with 4 kiB blocks, the WD Green 240 GiB was 75% faster than the Kingston SSDNow UV400 240 GiB and 10% slower than the SanDisk SSD PLUS.

WD Green 240 GiB

On the random read benchmark with 4 kiB blocks and queue depth of 32, the WD Green 240 GiB was 36% faster than the Kingston SSDNow UV400 240 GiB and performed similarly to the SanDisk SSD PLUS.

WD Green 240 GiB

On the random write benchmark with 4 kiB blocks and queue depth of 32, the WD Green 240 GiB was 34% slower than the Kingston SSDNow UV400 240 GiB and 28% slower than the SanDisk SSD PLUS.